Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 25.
“I thank the Minister of State for her helpful reply. Just one supplementary question. Based on these survey results – which I assume are provided by a trainer or training organisation – has there been any cases of a training organisation that consistently gets very poor results and, therefore, has been removed from the list of trainers that are eligible for Government financial support?”
“Yes. Where the TFR is higher or the TFR is lower. In America, for example, some research shows that higher-income, better educated women have more children. So, can that information also be made available, so that we can have a whole-of-society approach to address what is really an existential issue?”
“I thank the Minister for replying. I have two supplementary questions. The first is regarding the survey and the data that she referred to, is this data publicly available and can Singaporeans study the statistical fertility gap within that survey, the gap between the number of children that women want to have and how many they actually have? And does that data provide reasons for that gap, including all possible reasons such as housing affordability, for one, which has been discussed before in this House, where there is evidence from another study by a National University of Singapore (NUS) researcher that there is a correlation between high house prices and low total fertility rate (TFR)? The second supplementary question is, does this study contain – and if not, could future studies address – differences between the different segments in Singapore? Because that may be a source of policy ideas if we look at outliers where there are certain segments, be it by income or by other characteristics —”
“I also hope NParks will consider a complementary, restorative approach to tackling animal cruelty. This could mean requiring abusers to attend follow-ups with psychologists. NParks could also use touchpoints like pet shops and veterinary clinics to explain to owners why physical punishment and other ill-treatment like chaining, confining and not walking dogs, for example, are cruel practices. Afterall, people who mistreat animals may mistreat human beings too, one day.”
“Mr Chairman, all of us should care about biodiversity and the protection of endangered species. I propose that we enhance our efforts in tackling the illegal wildlife trade to better reflect Singapore's role as a globally important transport node. In last year's Endangered Species Act debate, the hon Member Mr Louis Ng asked if wildlife trafficking could be classified as a serious offence under the Organised Crime Act. I understand that Hong Kong has passed a Bill classifying the illegal wildlife trade under a similar law they have, the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance. I agree with this call and would also like to ask if the agencies tasked with tackling the illegal wildlife trade could explore coordination with their counterparts in countries identified to be key originating sources for shipments of such goods. On the local consumption front, can I check if the Ministry engages with traditional medicine practitioners to encourage them to highlight the negative impacts from consuming endangered animal products to potential consumers? This would be a good practice. Cruelty Towards Animals Mr Chairman, residents have raised concerns following some brutal cases of animal cruelty recently. NParks receives about 1,200 complaints on average each year, of which about 20 result in warning letters, 38 in fines and six in jail. I am aware it is not easy to obtain evidence in such cases. However, in my opinion, punishments are too lax. Some members of the public have pointed out that the maximum ban of 12 months for owners is lenient and it appears that the Courts do not often impose upper limits of jail terms, which go up to three years. I call on NParks to expedite its ongoing review of these penalties.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. Just a very quick one on the second supplementary question. In terms of this reference “at the end of the two-year period where you have to maintain your local workforce share”, if I understand the Minister correctly, I suppose that is referring to just maintain the absolute number of locals that the firm is hiring, rather than the share of locals as a percentage. Is that the correct understanding?”
“I thank the Minister for his concise answer. My question was really, of the 1,000 or so who are qualified, how many are locally owned businesses as opposed to foreign MNCs? I have another supplementary question, which is relating to the press release that was put up by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). The press release said that "at the end of the two-year period, firms would have to demonstrate that they maintained their local workforce share during this period". So, the M-SEP scheme is actually allowing firms to hire more work pass and S Pass holders during the two-year period. I just wanted to clarify, what that sentence is referring to: at the end of the two-year period, firms would also have to maintain their local workforce share. Because, if you are allowed to hire more of these work pass and S Pass holders, by definition, would your local workforce share not go down at the end of that two-year period? Unless you are not exercising as a company, the ability to hire more of those, which would also defeat the point of the scheme. I just want to clarify that.”
“I will keep it to two and I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir. First, to confirm my understanding, the NPF, if I read the Minister of State correctly, only funds other Government agencies and programmes. It does not give funding directly to TACs or to companies. The second supplementary question is, would the Ministry commit to making available clear statements online of what the NPF activities are, what its goals are, what its priorities are, based on the research that it is doing and to make this available to the members of the public?”
“I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, to confirm my understanding, does the NPF restrict its funding to other Government agencies, to support the projects that those agencies are running, or is the NPF also open to funding TACs, business chambers or even individual companies for their productivity enhancement efforts? The second supplementary question is, is the approach taken by the NPF more proactive or reactive, or is it a blend of both? Meaning to say that, can any organisation pitch a project to the NPF to request funding or is it the case that the NPF is not really open to that sort of modus operandi and they will just determine what sectors or what projects they want to do in any particular year? And thirdly, I am wondering if the NPF makes easily available online a statement of its objectives, its KPIs, its strategies, maybe a review of what it has done in the past year. Many Statutory Boards and agencies do have their annual reports online where the CEO will talk about the agencies' priorities, what they did in the previous year, what their goals are for the coming year and so on. I found it quite difficult to search for this information – and I stand corrected if I just did not try hard enough – and I only found some information on the NPF for 2010 and 2017. For 2017, I was able to find the annual report; it is a very brief annual report and I found it through the National Archives website, actually. So, I was just wondering if this information is easily available and if not, will it be made easily available, going forward, given the tremendous amount of funding that is going into the NPF?”
“Does MOM proactively monitor each insurer’s performance or does it only investigate complaints? How does MOM ensure that designated insurers comply with stipulated timelines for processing claims? Are insurers penalised for failing to comply? The WICA insurers’ manual should be published so the public can hold insurers accountable and report potential non-compliance. Can MOM also review the use of an independent assessor such as the Commissioner of Labour previously? This is done in New Zealand and Ireland. Lastly, on the subject of good quality food for migrant workers, there have been issues in the past and I have spoken on this topic in the House before. I suggest that: one, every new dormitory should be equipped with cooking facilities for workers. Many migrant workers prefer to cook their own food; secondly, can the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) consider mandating that catered food is delivered in safe eating conditions as per the National Environment Agency (NEA) regulations applicable for cooked food supplied by caterers for events? If this means food storage or a shift towards freezers and microwaves, so be it. CPF Contributions”
“Mr Chairman, last year saw 46 workplace deaths, the highest since 2016. We need to reflect on that. Migrant workers are more vulnerable to unsafe workplace practices because of their limited bargaining power. They need employers’ consent to transfer to a new job, save exceptions. This can be held against them and they might not dare to speak up for fear of repatriation. We need to make the playing field less uneven perhaps by allowing workers to transfer jobs without their employers’ consent in two scenarios. If they provide evidence of unsafe work, they should be allowed to resign without notice and stay here for two months to find another employer if that evidence is borne out. Second, they should be allowed to transfer if they have been working for at least one year with their current employer with a one-month notice period without their current employer being allowed to cancel their Work Permit during that period. This will incentivise employers to create safer, decent work environments. Also, can MOM empower workers to call out unsafe work practices? When settling in, MOM can assure them that whistle-blowers’ identities are kept confidential and they will be protected from dismissal. MOM can reward whistle-blowers if complaints are found to be valid. Next, under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), designated insurers process all WICA claims. An issue is that the WICA insurers become “gatekeepers” who determine which claims are valid before compensation is assessed. This creates a conflict of interest since insurers might be incentivised to deny validity. In 2019, the then-Minister of State said MOM was rolling out a system of checks and balances. Has MOM reviewed the performance of WICA insurers to see if this system is adequate?”
“Mr Chairman, there has been recent debate over the provision of chairs at retail outlets and the right of retail workers to sit. Multiple studies report there are significant health risks associated with prolonged standing, including chronic venous insufficiency, musculoskeletal disorders as well as spontaneous abortion for pregnant women in some rare cases. This is a health hazard caused by an inability to alternate muscle usage. Countries like Malaysia and South Africa have enacted laws on the right to sit. The UK requires retail outlets to provide seats and to allow staff to sit occasionally. Sir, I call on the Government to explore similar laws, perhaps by amending the WSH Handbook. Sir, the time has come to go beyond industry self-regulation on this issue. Our laws and regulations should promote our retail workers' health, well-being and longevity. Need for Greater Recognition of Skills”
“9 million Koreans used the system, reducing private tutoring spending by about S$870 million. Secondly, we can make internships compulsory for post-secondary institutions and consider this even for secondary schools. I have come across the perception in some quarters that students from better-off families have better access to internships due to their parents' networks. This is where MOE can come in to better improve the link between companies looking for internships and those less popular post-secondary and secondary schools who can offer interns. Spending time as an intern, imbibing work cultures and norms, helps divert some mental energy away from the excessive focus on academics.”
“Mr Chairman, recent reforms such as the new PSLE scoring system, the introduction of some aptitude-based admissions and the removal of mid-year examinations are commendable steps to make education more equitable, holistic and less exam-focused. However, we should ask what more we can do to reduce unhealthy competitive stress in schools. 6.15 pm According to a survey by Rakuten Insight in Singapore in May 2022, 63% of those aged 16 to 24 had a higher level of stress or anxiety for the past 12 months, the highest of any age group. A 2017 OECD study found that 66% of students across all OECD countries said they were worried about poor grades at school but in Singapore, among Singaporean students, it was far higher at 86%. Sir, I will make a few suggestions to better manage the unhealthy competitive stress that some students experience, especially the less academically able or financially better-off ones. Firstly, to further improve access to enrichment programmes for lower-income children, we could leverage technology to scale up access to quality education. To address the fact that better-off children can access better private tuition and enrichment classes, MOE should facilitate the production of engaging and easily accessible educational materials that are freely available online to students such as podcasts and explainer videos. These could complement students' in-school education. For example, according to the 2014 publication, Regulating Private Tutoring for Public Good, from the University of Hong Kong, South Korea's educational broadcasting system was established in 1990, with high-quality radio and television programmes, including, since 2004, lessons to prepare for standardised university entrance exams. In 2011, 3.”
“I wanted to clarify that the ad did not necessarily make me feel good. In fact, I felt a little bit concerned for the reasons I shared in my speech. But my clarification is really going back to advertising that is driving behaviours amongst citizens versus advertising that is driving a belief or conviction. If you look at the ad that I showed earlier, the main aim seems to be to convince people that the Government is making housing affordable and accessible. My question is: what is the problem statement that the ad is responding to? Is it that not enough people are applying for Build-To-Order (BTO) HDB flats? That cannot be, right? The BTO-flat application multiple has been rising, and it is very, very high. It seems to be more aimed at driving people to change their opinion of the Government. So, should there not be guardrails between advertising that drives towards changing people's opinion of the Government versus changing certain behaviours on the part of consumers? For example, if you have advertising to say, "Hey, you know" —”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I thank the Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How for his reply. I have a few clarifications. Before that I also want to clarify that I did not feel good about —”
“While what counts as greenwashing is not always clear, I would like to propose some solutions here. First, our Singapore Code of Advertising Practice should explicitly cover greenwashing, with the Government developing legislation to bring clarity on what constitutes greenwashing in advertising. Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) and industry bodies can support this, with the Government playing an arbiter role and also taking reference from definitions found in laws overseas while adapting them locally. When ready, we can develop relevant legislation, which could include the mandatory provision of supporting documents for companies that choose to make green claims. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is an early adopter of initiatives to tackle greenwashing, which could provide lessons. In 2022, MAS announced that funds that are sold to retail investors in Singapore under the label of meeting environmental, social, governance (ESG) standards will now have to back up their claims with new disclosure and reporting guidelines. Aside from legislating and enforcing against false advertising under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act and sector-specific laws like the Estate Agents Act and the Medicines Act, much more also needs to be done on engaging the public to remind them that spotting and reporting potential offences is a public good and will benefit society. Engagement will also better help us understand what the key on-the-ground issues with greenwashing are, even as we eventually aim to legislate and enforce against greenwashing. Trusted Content”
“So, what behaviour exactly are we nudging with this ad? Moreover, the ad seems more aimed at persuading people that the Government is doing a good job, keeping housing affordable and accessible, which is an opinion about public policy and one might say, politics. If the reply is that such advertising raises public confidence and trust in the agency or Government and hence, conduces more public participation in schemes, surely, the best way to establish trust is good service delivery and surely that trust cannot be bought with advertising. So, as to free up more revenue for the Budget, I would suggest that ads be run only where there is a measurable behavioural trade-off. A return on investment test should be applied. Revenue should not be spent on ads that generate "feel good" vibes or which aim to persuade people that the Government is doing a good job. The latter is more akin to political advertising and should not be funded with public money. Advertising Standards Mr Chairman, the practice of making false environmentally-friendly claims in advertising is dubbed greenwashing. In Singapore, it would seem that action is very rarely taken against advertisers who make dubious claims with the intent to deceive consumers that their products are "environmentally-friendly", "carbon neutral" and so on. Some countries have legislated on this issue. For example, France's Climate Law prohibits companies from advertising that their products are carbon neutral, unless they can provide public information to back that up. South Korea's government is simplifying its process to fine companies that make false claims about environmental impact. The UK government has created a Green Claims Code and done some enforcement around that.”
“Mr Chairman, extrapolating from a Parliamentary Question reply, the Government's total spending on advertising in 2022 may have been well over $100 million. I will make two points. Firstly, there has been concern expressed about an SGAG Instagram post that was only labelled "#sp". The Instagram function to show that an IG post is sponsored was not used in that particular instance. For transparency, would the Government agree to have clear labels on all advertisements indicating the responsible agency? After all, political ads are required to have labels issued by the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) Office. Secondly, I agree that there is a legitimate public interest served in Government advertising that serves to nudge citizens to do beneficial things, like take up healthy habits or apply for a useful scheme, for example. But some advertising seems to not embody a nudging intent. Some ads seem to be aimed more at fostering "feel good" vibes towards an agency, and some even seem aimed at persuading the public to see the Government in a good light, with no clear public interest served in terms of ultimately nudging positive behaviours. I only have time for one example. This is an advertisement on the housing programme. This ad, referred to by the hon members Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa earlier in this House, is aimed at persuading the public that, "We are committed to keeping HDB flats affordable and accessible for Singaporeans" and presents various factoids about Build-To-Order (BTO) launches and prices. But what is the public interest served here? To raise awareness so people apply for BTOs? But is this necessary? The application rates for BTOs are already very high and rising. Is there a need to raise awareness?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. Just two supplementary questions and I understand, of course, that you will have to relay this information from the State Courts. The first question is: is there a plan to overhaul the system? It seems to me that weekly maintenance that can take between four and 10 hours is quite burdensome and there is also feedback from some lawyers that the system is a bit clunky and slow, and sometimes, glitchy – that was reported in the media article. So, I am wondering if there is going to be a more thorough overhaul coming up in the future. And my second question is, I understand that the system for requesting criminal case management conferences is, right now, not integrated with ICMS. You would have to go to a separate page on the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) website. So, is there a plan to integrate that functionality into ICMS?”
“I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, just to make sure that I have the right understanding. The Minister was saying that, based on the impact studies that have been conducted in the past, for lower-skilled workers, when the supply of foreign manpower, when that tap is tightened, that tends to lead to better employment outcomes for Singaporeans at the lower end of the wage scale – I just wanted to clarify that. Because that is an interesting finding. For the other observation that the Minister made about the studies that for more highly-skilled foreign professionals, that that correlation does not really apply so much as it does to the lower-skilled workers. Would the right conclusion to draw from that, be that, we, in Singapore, are not producing enough highly-skilled or qualified professionals to fill the job vacancies that the economy is creating?”
“Question No 6. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Eric Chua) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Speaker, the Sports Facilities Master Plan (SFMP) aims to give Singaporeans good access to high quality sport facilities for them to pursue an active lifestyle, stay healthy and build strong community bonds through sports. The Master Plan comprises a range of sporting and recreational facilities that meet national, regional and local town needs. We provide for every Housing and Development Board (HDB) Town to have either a Town Sports Centre or Regional Sports Centre, and depending on population trends, may also be supplemented with a Town Play Field. Each of these facilities offer a broad range of sporting amenities to cater to a variety of different sporting and recreational interests. In determining what specific facilities to put in the towns, SportSG takes into account a variety of considerations, such as the town population size, popularity of sports, utilisation rates, availability of space, proximity to other sport and recreational amenities, as well as feedback from residents.”
“Yes. I received this letter from a particular agency, and I am just going to read out this one sentence: "We have reviewed your case and we regret to inform you that we are unable to accede to your request as the evidence supports the offence disclosed." I do not mean to be too prescriptive but, for example, you could reword this and say, "We have reviewed the facts and we are sorry that we cannot agree to your request because there is not enough proof." This is an example. For many Singaporeans who receive Government communications, English may not always be their first language. So, I think my clarification is, would the Government consider implementing much more simplified communications in its letters and so on to Singaporeans, as a WOG effort.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate the Senior Minister of State's reply. I just have one supplementary question, which is that, would the Government consider launching a whole-of-Government (WOG) movement to simplify language in Government communications, in a very concerted manner that is regularly reviewed. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, could I just read out one sentence from a letter I received from a Government agency?”
“That it should revert to a ceremonial Presidency. So, this does not change that.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to thank Minister Indranee Rajah for her reply to my cut. I just have one clarification, and I appreciate her laying out the process for seeking the President's recommendation on Bills, with fiscal implications as well as speaking about areas of exercisable discretion and so on. Those points are well taken. My clarification is just about why there is a need to have this rather curious and complicated procedure, where for these matters, something is referred to the President, but then, the Cabinet instructs the President to act in a very prescriptive way and President has to act that way and then the Bill can move forward in Parliament. It does not seem to serve any constructive purpose, in terms of time and the administrative effort and efficiency. And moreover, would the Minister give some thought to the consideration I raised? There is a potential disamenity in keeping such arrangements in place which is that of the President being seen to be a part of this sort of procedure which involves box-ticking or rubber stamping. It could be seen that way. It does not really help the standing of the Office of the President and just seems unnecessary. Will the Government consider reforming this aspect of the Constitution to sort of do away with that procedural step. And before I resume my seat, I just want to say that it should be clear that we have debated in this Chamber before on the Workers' Party's position on the Presidency —”
“And secondly, and much more importantly, what is the rationale for having such provisions in the Constitution whereby the Cabinet can deem the President to have said "yes" or "no" on certain matters and, hence, decide by itself? The role of the President in this regard does not seem to serve any check or balance function. What function then does it serve?One asks oneself what possible purpose could be served by such a procedural requirement baked into the Constitution. I can see no benefit to the body politic. In fact, I see a downside. Making it known that the President's approval is deemed by the Cabinet in certain domains as happened in November last year does not serve to enhance the prestige and standing of the Office of the President in the eyes of the public. In fact, to the contrary, this practice of "deemed approval" risks being seen by the public as involving the Office of President in a rubber-stamping or box-ticking exercise. It serves no constructive purpose and undermines the standing of the President. If there is no real reason for such provisions, will the Government do away with these provisions at some point in the future, given that there are no upsides but only downsides? Unless there are some upsides I cannot fathom right now and which the Government can explain.”
“Mr Chairman, my cut today refers to my exchange with Minister Indranee Rajah during the debate on the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill. In the exchange, I was told the Presidential approval had not been obtained on my proposed amendments. I asked the Government when these amendments had been referred to the President to obtain the decision to which Minister Indranee Rajah made this reply and I am quoting a little from the longest speech she made in the interest of time, "We determine that my amendments could not be supported, the reasons explained earlier by my colleagues and, as the amendments could not be supported, they will not put forward to the President for the President's recommendation." From this, it would seem that the exercise of the President's power to approve legislation that has fiscal implications has to be according to the Cabinet's advice. It would also seem that the Government can and does deem the President's approval to have been given or not given without necessarily referring the matter to the President. As I understand the statement, she did say that the President's approval or non-approval could be, to all practical intents and purposes, deemed to have been given by the Cabinet. And it did say that that particular matter had not been referred to the President. So, my questions here are two-fold. Firstly, in cases where the President has a constitutional duty to say "yes" or "no" to certain matters such as legislation with fiscal implications and when her decision can be deemed to have been given one way or the other by the Cabinet, is the matter referred to the President, the CPA and the other staff in the office of the President for at least discussion or information prior to the Cabinet's decision?”
“But later on, when questioned by Ms Poa, he, to my mind, unless I misheard him, the argument changed to one of a "sugar rush". So, I just wanted to ask if, based on the Deputy Prime Minister's original response that the economic modelling shows that her proposal would not generate any revenue, could that model be shared so that economists and the public can scrutinise it?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think Leader of the Opposition has a clarification as well. But I just wanted to make one point in response to the Deputy Prime Minister again on our 2019 housing paper. He read out this sentence, "Would the HDB have a vacancy rate problem compounded by a still steady stream of 16,000 to 17,000 BTO units in the last few years which will continue to increase supply up to 2022." If you look at the sentence, what the sentence is saying is not that there is an imminent risk of vacancies, not that there is going to be vacancies in 2022. It is saying that there will be, there is a risk of vacancies if you continue to build following this kind of pattern. So, there is no time frame attached to that and I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister again that the whole context of our argument or focus on this paper is longer term housing dynamic trends. More importantly, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister again, that this first paragraph does not amount to a call to action, to a proposal, to a suggestion. We go on to say "BTO projects should continue". If we had meant to say "BTO projects should be cut back", we would have said that. So, I really hope the Peoples' Action Party will stop propagating this falsehood that our 2019 paper called for a cutback to BTO supply in 2019. And if it does not do that, I would really question if the PAP has become a party that propagates falsehoods to gain political mileage. The second clarification, on the exchange with the hon Member Ms Hazel Poa, I think initially the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that based on his economic modelling, Ms Poa's proposal would not yield more revenue.”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to do that. The first clarification on the HPI. The Deputy Prime Minister asked, why does Workers' Party say a HPI of three, why not a HPI of two or lower? There is an organisation called Demographia and the Government in its Parliamentary Question (PQ) replies have referred to the research of this particular organisation. I do not think the Government would have done that if it is not an organisation that does not do credible work. Demographia regards anything above five for HPI as extremely or critically unaffordable; three to five as moderately unaffordable in some way; and three and below is affordable. So, there is some basis in the research and the science around this to say that that figure of three is a good affordability target. So, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what the People's Action Party seems to be saying, that anything below five is fine. What is the basis for saying that? And the last clarification, I will keep it brief – in response to the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister has set out a worldview that reducing the rate of growth of reserves is taking away from past generations. We have debated this many times. In 2008, the PAP did just that – when it created the Net Investments Return (NIR) Framework, slowed it even more, in 2015 with adding Temasek. So, why is that not irresponsible and not taking money away from future generations? But when the Workers’ Party says it, then is irresponsible! Is it seeking political mileage that it is okay when you do it but it is not okay when we call for it? [Applause.]”
“It says, BTO projects should continue and then it goes on to say that you can taper that down in the longer term when our USB proposal kicks in, which would yield flats that could be repurposed as Sale of Balance flats (SBF) or for expanded public rental scheme. But that only starts to kick in in about 12 years’ time. So, I think it is very important to have debates on our real positions and not mischaracterise one another's positions. We did not put out a proposal in 2019 that you cut BTO construction. If we had wanted to, we would have set that out clearly in plain language. My other two clarifications to the Deputy Prime Minister. Firstly, about —”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to respond to the point in the HDB paper and then I have two clarifications to put to the Deputy Prime Minister. And to some extent time, I am repeating what Mr Louis Chua said on the point about the HDB paper when it was first made, but I think it needs some treatment in a bit more granularity than what the Leader of the Opposition had time to do just now. Because the People's Action Party seems to be doubling down on this incorrect assertion, using its tremendous PR and communicative machinery to repeat this assertion about the Workers’ Party HDB paper again and again, on social media, in letters to The Straits Times, Zaobao. So, let me go back to that and we can read out those two paragraphs. I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister read our paper. We worked on it. The first paragraph contains observations and poses a question that does not amount to a call to action. The second paragraph is the call to action. The first paragraph makes observations about the risk of vacancies in the context of a paper on longer-term housing dynamics; that resale prices will inevitably come under pressure at some point. And I think the Government has acknowledged that. I refer to the exchange between Senior Minister of State Sim Ann and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, my colleague. So, it is in that context that those observations were made in the questions posed. But the call to action comes in the second paragraph which says BTO projects should continue. I repeat, BTO projects should continue. It does not say BTO projects should continue at a reduced rate; it does not say BTO projects should stop. You laugh, you laugh. Let me continue. It does not say BTO projects should continue but at 9,000 rather than 17,000.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, my last supplementary question, just to confirm my understanding of the Minister's reply. I believe what she is saying is that, this matter is still being studied, it is not a no, and the Government of Singapore may make a financial contribution to the Loss and Damage found in the future. Is that the correct understanding?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure the Minister has directly addressed the question I raised. I would like to put it again, will the Government be either now or eventually making a financial contribution to the Loss and Damage fund? Or is it the case that the Government is still thinking about that? And if so, then is it the case that it is not a definite no right now and there could be a financial contribution that the Government makes to this fund eventually.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for her reply. I think the Minister would be aware that I believe, seven countries have made a provisional pledge of I believe, US$275 million and those countries include if I am not wrong Germany, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Canada, and New Zealand. So, to rephrase my question, would Singapore be pledging to contribute to the fund, bearing in mind that the details are still being worked out.”
“I thank the Minister for her reply and my apologies if I did not catch this, but I am not sure if she mentioned whether Singapore will be making a financial contribution to the Loss and Damage fund under COP27. So, I would like to ask that. And also, if that is going to be the case, what that quantum of that contribution is and if not, what the reasons for not making the contribution are?”
“I thank the Minister for her replies. Is there a timeline within which the Government will be looking to consider introducing reporting of Scope 3 emissions, because the Minister mentioned that this is going to be reviewed progressively.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. With reference to the Montreal event, COP15, some developed countries have pledged to make a financial contribution to support other developing countries, for example, in Africa, to protect biodiversity. Given the limitations that we face to protect our green spaces – as the Minister of State observed, we are a small, densely populated city state – would the Government consider reviewing in the future if it could make financial contribution to other countries to protect biodiversity specifically, given this is a good signal to send that we are committed to playing our part globally?”
“It would be a backlash not only around distributive justice – the distribution of economic fruits – but also contributive justice – the right of citizens to contribute equally to society and to obtain dignity and recognition in making that contribution. In the US, voting patterns have come to diverge between those with and without college degrees, with many non-college graduates turning to the kind of anti-systemic politics seen in the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021. As the writer Oren Cass said when speaking of the dangers of irresponsible populism, "The question is not whether the open agenda and a very laissez-faire unbridled meritocracy, will lose, but to what?" An extreme form of meritocracy and laissez-faire policies that elevate it, to some extent, unfairly, define as having merit too high and too harshly above all other people, cannot be sustained, as is the case with all tyrannies in the end.”
“] There are different approaches the Government can take here. But upon deep reflection, I think the onus here is not only or primarily on the Government but on all of us. It is very difficult to successfully choreograph events and policy practices that set out to foster mingling and respect across socioeconomic lines unless culturally, Singaporeans bring to such engagements the right mindsets and values. So we should always guard against prejudice when deciding on awarding a contract or promotion or choosing a service provider between someone with credentials and someone with less; rather, we need to focus on their ability to do the job. We should always guard against the lionisation of book-smarts and the undervaluing of street smarts. We should be vigilant to not privilege conventional pathways to success at the expense of those who are successful in other fields that are more craft-intensive. And to paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, we should always, as the cornerstone of Singapore culture, judge and value each person not on their credentials and net financial worth, but on the content of their character. The one does not beget the other. (In English): In conclusion, Madam, we should reject a meritocracy that creates a natural aristocracy. The term "meritocracy" comes from the British author, Michael Young. He coined it in 1958 as a satire to parody the concept of an unbridled meritocracy as a dystopia. In his satirical work, he envisioned a popular revolt against meritocracy in the year 2033. An unbridled and heartless meritocracy inevitably leads to a backlash on those who feel disadvantaged and discriminated against because society undervalues and underpays for their skills, aptitudes and potential.”
“Right now, some companies do engage with the universities and polytechnics to secure interns but it is less easy or common for them to engage with secondary schools and junior colleges to the same end, particularly, the less popular ones. Lastly, our social service agencies should provide more generous levels of aid to poor families but in such a way as to encourage positive behaviours that will help them improve economically and break the poverty cycle for their children – healthier eating and cooking habits, regular health screening, financial literacy training and so on. I recently had the privilege of working with a few non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in one of the rental blocks in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC. They held sessions at the block to help families take better care of their mental health and physical confidence and to support the children in terms of confidence building, decision-making and goal-setting skills. Such interventions can be deeply meaningful. I will speak more about this at the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) Committee of Supply. I come to the final part of my speech, Madam. How do we address the issue of prejudice against those lacking degrees, high levels of education and great career success? How do we make sure that Singapore does not become the "two Singapores" that the Leader of the Opposition alluded to, that we do not become a society where such people are looked down upon and face either quiet or overt condescension? How do we ensure, in Michael Sanders' words, "that credentialism does not become the last acceptable prejudice"? I would like to finish this last part of my speech in our national language. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.”
“I know from a reply to my PQ last year that 90% of children in Singapore aged three to four are enrolled in preschool, but this proposal would make a difference to the 10%. Secondly, I would urge the Government again to consider lowering form class sizes and to publish randomised control trials on the benefits of smaller classes on learning outcomes in general and for those less advantaged students in particular, where some research has shown that smaller classes bring benefits. I set out the detailed arguments for this and why it is different from ad hoc smaller banded classes in an Adjournment Motion in this House in 2017. My colleague, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, has also spoken about this. Thirdly, would the Government consider a proposal for a SkillsFuture education loan to help fund Continuing Education and Training (CET) for adults who cannot competitively secure places among scholarships and places in retraining programmes like Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs), a supply of which is still limited? The Workers' Party made this proposal in its 2020 manifesto, which is for SkillsFuture to disburse a zero-interest loan for adult CET. This thrust could support the upgrading and future-proofing of trades and blue-collar jobs that I spoke about earlier. Access to such loans could be made more readily available than the supply of special SkillsFuture grants, but weighted towards those with lower incomes and towards CET programmes that support retraining to a sunrise industry like high-tech farming, for example. Fifth, would Government agencies work with industry bodies to nudge companies to offer more internships and attachments to students from less popular secondary schools? Such students would benefit from understanding the culture and work norms in companies.”
“In an extended analysis of Singapore's productivity performance in 2020, economists Manu Bhaskaran and Nigel Chiang provided data to show that our "TFP growth—is poor relative to our peer group as well as the OECD group of developed nations and has been worsening substantially over the years. After a surge in 2003 to 2004, TFP growth began to decelerate before declining outright after 2005." Could managerial skills play a role here? This should be studied and addressed. On this note, I filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the latest findings of the World Management Survey, which suggests poor results for Singapore. Next, I will move to another topic relevant to our meritocracy – ensuring fair minimum floors for those who are less successful in life and doing more to bring about equality of opportunity for poor children. I acknowledge the expansion of KidSTART and ComLink as referred to in Budget 2023. These are moves in the right direction but I have a few suggestions here. Firstly, preschool plays a key role in setting the stage for success in school and work later in life. The earlier we intervene to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds, the less of a disadvantage they will face when they enter primary school and the less likely they would be to drop out. My suggestion is that the Government makes preschool education compulsory and completely free for those of lower incomes. A UNESCO study conducted in 2020 found that 63 countries have adopted legal provisions for free pre-primary education and 51 countries have adopted pre-primary education as a compulsory level in national legal frameworks.”
“Also, does the NPF funding give sufficient focus to non-tradeable domestic sectors where there are productivity problems, perhaps, are the worst, as I will explain later. I ask this because it is important for such funding to be very results driven. A case in point – was there evidence that the old Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme actually had a causal effect in raising productivity – a question I have raised in this House previously. A KPMG report from 2015 stated, "While take-up rates have gone up, the scheme's impact on productivity has been muted." Sir, our value-added per worker fell in the latest quarter, which underlines the challenge we are facing with productivity. However, there are some sectors in Singapore that are fairly productive by global standards, for example, manufacturing and financial services. The main problem seems to be non-tradeable domestic sectors such as F&B, retail, personal services, construction and so on – sectors which provide services that are not exported but consumed in Singapore. Has the Government studied if and why our productivity is lower than other developed countries in these sectors? I would suggest that we work with trade associations and chambers (TACs) to benchmark more productive countries in these sectors and then use schemes such as NPF funding to nudge our small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular to implement more productive business processes and technologies. At this point, I declare my interest as the chairman of a research consultancy that undertakes economic and business consulting. Also, will the Government take seriously our abysmal performance on total factor productivity (TFP) – a subject I have raised in the House previously?”
“Secondly, once it is clear that we have attracted a critical mass of Singaporeans into these jobs, we should slowly reduce the supply of foreign Work Passes in those professions but at a calibrated pace that businesses can adapt to. Nothing nudges employers to take better care of workers than the prospect that that worker may leave and be hard to replace. Next, I would suggest that our economic development agencies like the Economic Development Board (EDB) and Enterprise Singapore try to nudge foreign investors and local firms towards hiring some Singaporeans with lesser educational credentials so as to retrain them in skills that are adjacent to the skillsets that they have but are more future-proof and enable them to operate at a higher level of productivity that can command better pay. Perhaps this can be one consideration – not the only one, of course – in the award of economic incentives. Next, I would like to move to the subject of productivity. Raising productivity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improving the lot of those in trades jobs. In Budget 2023, the Government is making a $4 billion top-up to the National Productivity Fund (NPF). Sir, I note that the NPF was set up in 2010. I tried searching for information on the NPF and the Productivity Fund Administration Board, and I found it difficult to identify its activities and investments every single year. All that was readily available from an admittedly basic online search were reports on activities from 2010 and 2017. I would like to ask that the goals, strategies, KPIs and investment activities of the NPF be made easily available online for transparency. Most importantly, I would like to ask what would be the KPIs for how the funds are used?”
“This would entail expanding the range or capacity for Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs) where capacities are now limited in terms of their share of the workforce. More importantly, this would need a change of mindsets and that in turn would need to be catalysed through education and communication efforts. Interestingly, even now, some of these jobs like prime mover drivers, for example, which require much skill and experience, offer fairly decent pay, though that can be increased further, as I will explain. But these blue-collar jobs seem to be attracting few young Singaporeans. According to a recent Channel NewsAsia (CNA) article on this topic, some in the haulage industry, for example, estimate the average age of prime mover drivers to be 55, with younger drivers accounting for 5% to 10% of the workforce or less. Pay could be part of the reason but other reasons may include negative perceptions, working hours or conditions. I believe what is needed is to develop job redesign and career laddering plans for these trades jobs in conjunction with industry chambers and stakeholders. We should nudge or move towards more training and productivity for such jobs, which would enable better pay and conditions. This would need to be accompanied by educational campaigns to change mindsets and remove the social stigma some associate with such jobs. Such trades jobs are skilled and should command respect in society. Lastly and most importantly of all, our national strategy towards these trades jobs should include two more elements. Firstly, we should fast track some foreign Work Pass holders who are very skilled and experienced in these trades jobs to become Singaporean Citizens to enhance the Singapore Core in those jobs.”
“His work suggests that more unequal societies generally have poorer physical and mental health, trust levels, child well-being and so on. So, Madam, I return to the question I began with: what kind of meritocracy do we want? I think our answer to that question has to be not an unbridled winner-take-all meritocracy. Rather what we should seek is a meritocracy that strives for equality of opportunity and social mobility but going beyond that, one that ensures sustainability, a decent standard of living and societal respect, a levelling up for those who are less successful in conventional terms. The remainder of my speech, Madam, will provide specific suggestions on just how to do that. Firstly, I would like to speak about vocational or trades jobs. I have spoken at length in this House on this subject in the past. We need a concerted policy effort to improve wages, skills, productivity, working conditions, societal respect in trades jobs, for example, carpentry, plumbing, air-condition repair, forklift and crane operators and so on. We need this so that the Singapore core can be attracted back to these jobs since, anecdotally, it would appear that there are a few younger Singaporeans entering such trades, a theme I will come back to later. I would also add to this list skilled artisanal or craft jobs like jewellery designers and historical architecture conservationists. Madam, right now, about 250,000 Singaporeans work in gig jobs. Some of these jobs, such as delivery or transcribing, for example, will gradually become obsolete due to technologies like drones, autonomous vehicles and artificial intelligence (AI). We need to nudge Singaporeans in these jobs to consider a career switch to other jobs, including revamped trades jobs.”
“Interestingly, a survey by OPPI showed that whilst Singaporeans overwhelmingly believe in meritocracy, Singaporeans in the younger age group, 18 to 25 especially, have a lower belief that Singapore society is equal and fair compared to older age groups. Anecdotally, in my conversations with younger Singaporeans, many expressed that the intense competitiveness in Singapore at work and academia coupled with a high cost of living and housing is taking a toll on their ability to live holistically meaningful and purposeful life with enough time for family, hobbies and passions. To be sure, meritocracy has its merits. Jobs should go to people with the best abilities. Ours should not be a society where we punish those who can invent, lead, create, take responsible risks, inspire others even as we strive to uplift the least advantaged. We need a high productivity, innovative economy to grow the pie. If we fail in this, the poor will be the hardest hit. But to get that economy, do gaps in income and economic security need to be so large? Some countries seem to generate entrepreneurism and economic dynamism with smaller gaps. Sweden and Denmark come to mind as examples. Taking this idea seriously is important and not only because we want to be fair to those who have been less successful in conventional academic economic terms, though that alone would be enough. After all, in reply to my Parliamentary Question in 2021, it was revealed that there was a gap in life expectancy in Singapore of almost six years between those with post-secondary education and those without. No, but this is also important because as scholars like Richard Wilkinson have argued, high inequality weakens everyone in society.”
“There is a strong case for raising floor levels of living standards and dignity for those who have skills that are less marketable but doing so in ways that are economically sustainable, like retraining and so on. We should reject the notion of a natural aristocracy of merit – that the more successful behave like aristocrats did in feudal societies. I received some interesting comments on my social media posts on meritocracy but let me quote an excerpt from one of those comments that I found gut-wrenching, and I am paraphrasing here a little bit and I quote, "I am not an academically driven person. I used to study in ITE but I dropped out. I don't wish to be discriminated against as a lowly-educated person, thus I pursued my diploma after NS. The point here is that there is a perception that those who went through university at NTU, NUS, etc., these are the best people, not only at school but at work. Going to job interviews, employers will outright tell me that my grades are bad, why should they consider my application? The discrimination for those who didn't go through good schools with good grades is real, not to mention usually in workplaces, those with university degrees were often be pushed up the career ladder faster than those who don't have. Life for me is tough. I seriously don't know why people have to shame those who are not well-educated like myself." I am sure we can all feel the pain of this person that comes not only from the sense of the economic game stacked against him but also the pain of feeling disrespected in society.”